From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V16 #549 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Monday, March 24 2008 Volume 16 : Number 549 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Real-estatiax [Tom Clark ] Re: Frank Rich on the forthcoming disaster [Rex ] Re: Frank Rich on the forthcoming disaster [Benjamin Lukoff ] RE: you are making my point ["michael wells" ] "Extremely Successful" ["Stacked Crooked" ] Re: Frank Rich on the forthcoming disaster [2fs ] "Extremely Successful" ["Stacked Crooked" ] Re: Self-pimping [2fs ] Re: "Extremely Successful" [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: Frank Rich on the forthcoming disaster ["kevin studyvin" ] Not to change the subject or anything, but ["kevin studyvin" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 13:58:11 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: Real-estatiax On Mar 24, 2008, at 12:58 PM, "Stewart C. Russell" wrote: > Renting would be about 3x what we pay in mortgage here. Plus, I'm > Scottish - we don't have the rental gene. > > It was *really* not-so-bright of us as a couple with no kids to > unwittingly buy a house close to one of the best junior schools in > Toronto, mind. > That's what we thought in 1993 when we bought our house within walking distance to one of the best elementary schools in San Jose. Now our daughter attends kindergarten there. btw I'm currently having lunch at Mandalay Bay in Vegas and they just RickRolled us over the sound system!! - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 14:03:32 -0700 From: Rex Subject: Re: Frank Rich on the forthcoming disaster On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 12:08 PM, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > Reminds me of this passage, especially the last sentence. Yes, here's a quick example of my whiplash: > "In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. > [...] So when they are told to bus their > children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American > is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college > because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're > told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow > prejudiced, resentment builds over time. But these people are assholes, Barack! Don't give these kinds of views lip-service; they don't deserve it. > "Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren't > always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the > political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and > affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians > routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show > hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus > claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial > injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism. Aww, man, you're just giving them an excuse! Stop! If those reactionary pundits didn't exist, their audiences would've invented them. On the other hand, you're totally right about the bogusness of all that stuff... > "Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white > resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle > class squeeze - a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable > accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by > lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. Well, hell yeah, I couldn't agree with that any more strongly! Those are the real bad guys, and we shouldn't be distracted by... wait, what are we going to do about entitlement-y white jackasses again? > And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to > label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are > grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide, and > blocks the path to understanding. Wait, are they grounded in legitimate concerns? Why are we making excuses for these guys? He ran up against the same kinds of contradictions on how level (or not) the playing field has gotten: he says Rev. Wright doesn't recognize that things *have* changed, but elsewhere notes that the schools and services in many black neighborhoods still suck, so isn't some of the Reverend's anger justified? Is it sorta-better, or still bad but not-anger-worthy, or what? I know that part of the point of the speech was to demonstrate the complexity of the issue (did someone not know that?), and it did possess an unprecedented frankness... but I'm at a loss as to what was being advocated in the end, and I felt a wound or two being unnecessarily reopened along the way-- wounds in some cases I had never felt before, in some cases. And the only reason I could see for it was his campaign's self-interest, in which light it was positively (yep) Clinton-esque, in all the bad senses of the term. Al Gore? Please? - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 14:17:13 -0700 From: "Jason Brown" Subject: Re: Twain and Rand (No RH) On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 1:47 PM, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > It is my understand that toward the end of his life he became more jaded > and cynical, and that is when these pieces I refer to date from. I believe this was the same period when Twain teamed up with Nikola Tesla to build giant robots to fight the evil plans of J.P. Morgan and Thomas Edison. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Fists_of_Science - -- "Never go with a hippie to a second location." - Jack Donaghy ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 13:22:42 -0800 (PST) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: Frank Rich on the forthcoming disaster On Mon, 24 Mar 2008, Rex wrote: > On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 12:08 PM, Benjamin Lukoff > wrote: > > Reminds me of this passage, especially the last sentence. > > Yes, here's a quick example of my whiplash: > > > "In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. > > [...] So when they are told to bus their > > children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American > > is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college > > because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're > > told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow > > prejudiced, resentment builds over time. > > > But these people are assholes, Barack! Don't give these kinds of views > lip-service; they don't deserve it. I thought we were supposed to try to understand those who want to kill us/oppress us/whatever.....? > > And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to > > label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are > > grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide, and > > blocks the path to understanding. > > Wait, are they grounded in legitimate concerns? Why are we making excuses > for these guys? See above.. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 10:25:52 +1300 From: grutness@slingshot.co.nz Subject: Re: Frank Rich on the forthcoming disaster >What attracts me the most to Obama is his ability to think *reasonably.* >I've been following the campaign extremely closely, and I am again and again >impressed by his ability to apply common sense, reason, and rationality to a >variety of positions. What's most remarkable to me about his "race speech" >(by the way, the first of *three* consecutive major speeches, but the only >one covered extensively by the mainstream media; perhaps the War and the >Economy are not as juicy as the Wright affair) is that he speaks about race >in an intelligent and reasonable fashion. That in itself is startling for a >high-profile politician. I'm sure I'm not the first to have drawn the obvious analogy, but is anyone sure that it's not Matt Santos who's running for president here? Admittedly the writers of The West Wing wqould have had a fairly clear idea that Obama would be a major contender by the time the last couple of series were made, but the parallels seem quite remarkable. James - -- James Dignan, Dunedin, New Zealand -.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.- =-.-=-.-=-.- You talk to me as if from a distance .-=-.-=-.-=-. -=-. And I reply with impressions chosen from another time .-=- .-=-.-=-.-=-.-=- (Brian Eno - "By this River") -.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 13:46:51 -0800 (PST) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: Twain and Rand (No RH) On Mon, 24 Mar 2008, Jason Brown wrote: > On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 1:47 PM, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > > It is my understand that toward the end of his life he became more jaded > > and cynical, and that is when these pieces I refer to date from. > > I believe this was the same period when Twain teamed up with Nikola > Tesla to build giant robots to fight the evil plans of J.P. Morgan and > Thomas Edison. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Fists_of_Science Bizarre! Anyway--I do highly recommend both "What Is Man?" and "The Mysterious Stranger" to you all. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 17:50:24 -0700 From: "michael wells" Subject: RE: you are making my point Jill: > I make it a point of missing the point of Howard Stern. Wouldn't that be pointless? I'm losing track here. > Still, he was my god for so many years that I will always see him when he is in my neighborhood. My years of following him around are most probably over for good. Was it a hard decision to end up going, Jill? I thought a long time about whether to plump for tickets to the current Rush tour (I decided against, for the time being, which is the first time in like 25 years that's happened), and I figured if it required that much effort then the magic really wasn't happening anymore. I don't want to go just for the sake of going, but I do feel the tug of familiarity and worship. Axe worship, that is. Lifeson is God. Michael ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 11:42:29 -0700 From: "Stacked Crooked" Subject: "Extremely Successful" you know who deserves the fucking blame here? anybody who, five years after the fact, continues to drive a motor-car and/or pay federal income taxes, and/or in any other way vote with his or her dollars for the continuation of american empire. in short: you, me, us. you want this lifestyle? then war in iraq is necessary. oh, and obama, the piece of shit slimeball, can go fuck himself: >>By the way, I would reach out to the first George Bush. You know, one of the things that I think George H.W. Bush doesnt get enough credit for was his foreign policy team and the way that he helped negotiate the end of the Cold War and prosecuted the Gulf War. That cost us 20 billion dollars. Thats all it cost. It was extremely successful.<< it's not inconceivable that obama's completely ignorant of the humanitarian cost of the first gulf war (not to mention the post-cold-war economic "shock therapy" in the former communist countries). if so, it's all the more reason to not vote for him. fuck obama. fuck hillary. fuck the democrats twenty-five ways from sunday. fuck them. fuck them. fuck them to hell. and then fuck them some more. the fucking shithole pieces of fuck. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 18:55:35 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: Frank Rich on the forthcoming disaster First off, I need to say this: I am not an Obamaniac. I have not been a supporter of his from the beginning. I recognize that he is not Jesus. I recognize that, in fact, his relations with the finance community in particular are troubling. But I also recognize this: either he, or Clinton, or McCain is going to be the next president. Of the three, I think he's the best choice by a pretty wide margin. Anyway: On 3/24/08, Rex wrote: > > > > Yes, here's a quick example of my whiplash: > "In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. > > > [...] So when they are told to bus their > > > children to a school across town; when they hear that an African > American > > is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good > college > > because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when > they're > > told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow > > prejudiced, resentment builds over time. > > > > But these people are assholes, Barack! Don't give these kinds of views > lip-service; they don't deserve it. They may or may not be assholes - but they are citizens. What you might privately think, or say about people among your friends, isn't the same thing you say *to* them when you're trying to not have them act out their idiocies publicly. This might be something I've learned as a teacher. Some of my students are dopes, some are lazy, some are immature, some are assholes, some are headcases. But I still have to teach them, as best I can - and whatever I might say about them in conversation with other teachers (which is that they're dopes, lazy, immature, etc.) - saying that to their faces wouldn't help a damned thing and would, in fact, make it much worse. In other words, Obama isn't just preaching to the choir, or running for President of the Good People of America. Besides which, they're not all assholes, etc. The person who doesn't get a job, when a black person (who's equally qualified) does get it, that person still doesn't have a job. And the reason he doesn't have a job isn't his fault. (It isn't the black person's fault, either - and, I would argue, it's not Affirmative Action's fault either. It may be no one's fault - there simply aren't enough jobs for everyone, so you hire the person who will best benefit the firm collectively, which might be an African-American because you recognize that in the past, your firm might have preferentially hired whites, and there's a measurable economic advantage to having a diverse workplace. It might be the fault of the economic system as a whole, creating artificial scarcities. Point is, working-class whites *have* been screwed, even if their notions of who's screwing them might be false. > "Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren't > > always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the > > political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and > > affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians > > routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk > show > > hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus > > claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial > > injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse > racism. > > > > Aww, man, you're just giving them an excuse! Stop! If those reactionary > pundits didn't exist, their audiences would've invented them. On the > other > hand, you're totally right about the bogusness of all that stuff... Isn't it better to address, bluntly, *why* those resentments exist? As you say, they'd exist in any case. What "excuse" are they being given? I mean, if you *don't* talk about them, they have the "excuse" of being ignored. > "Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white > > resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle > > class squeeze - a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, > questionable > > accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by > > lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few > over > > the many. > > > > Well, hell yeah, I couldn't agree with that any more strongly! Those are > the real bad guys, and we shouldn't be distracted by... wait, what are we > going to do about entitlement-y white jackasses again? > > > > > And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to > > label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are > > grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide, and > > blocks the path to understanding. > > > > Wait, are they grounded in legitimate concerns? Why are we making excuses > for these guys? As I said: yes, they are grounded in legitimate concerns - which is not to say they are themselves legitimate (the "grounded" metaphor is used advisedly: they're *based on* real injustice, even if their overall analysis of that injustice is grossly wrong). I don't think this is making excuses: it's (aside from what I said above) presenting an analysis of a huge problem. And I think white resentment is a huge problem, and not just regarding race. I'd go so far as to say that it's a chief underpinning of the whole current, nasty version of conservatism - resentment against supposed "others" who question the way they used to do things. Why else could so much rancor be stirred up by what kind of coffee someone else drinks? How the hell can "latte-drinking" be an insult? Well, because it stands for something like "people who have unearned privileges, people who've turned their back on us, people who think they're better than us, which is why they pretend to like stupid imported coffees and cheeses and wines when if they weren't so dishonest with themselves - wimps! - they'd drink Bud and individually wrapped American cheese and coffee at McDonald's like normal Americans. And they wouldn't go off marrying foreigners and giving their kids middle names like "Hussein" forchrissakes." That resentment is grounded in a refusal to believe that people who express ideas and preferences different from their own can truly hold those ideas and preferences. That, in turn, follows from a reflexive anti-intellectualism, sometimes religious-based, sometimes based in a gross misunderstanding of "democracy" ("everyone's just as good as anyone else"), but most often based in not wanting to recognize that their old ways of doing and being may have been superseded. He ran up against the same kinds of contradictions on how level (or not) the > playing field has gotten: he says Rev. Wright doesn't recognize that > things > *have* changed, but elsewhere notes that the schools and services in many > black neighborhoods still suck, so isn't some of the Reverend's anger > justified? Is it sorta-better, or still bad but not-anger-worthy, or > what? Wright's anger was justified (both "was justified" in the sense of "is based in reality" and "was justified" as in "by Obama") but the particular ways he expressed it, and the targets of his anger, were condemned. I know that part of the point of the speech was to demonstrate the > complexity of the issue (did someone not know that?), Any thinking person knows it - but unfortunately, it's exceedingly rare for a politician to acknowledge that, and to give people credit for the ability to think complexly. One of the most maddening aspects of American culture is the ridiculous hypocrisy between what we say we want or believe and what, by our actions, we actually believe. Anything surrounding sex is an obvious example...but it's almost impossible for a public figure to even suggest that at any time in its history, America has ever done even the teensiest, slightest thing at all wrong or self-interested. Or at least, when they do so a huge cabal of right-thinking Americans is ready to hang them from the nearest lamppost for "hating America" and makes them into a supposed "blame-America-first crowd." and it did possess an > unprecedented frankness... but I'm at a loss as to what was being > advocated > in the end, and I felt a wound or two being unnecessarily reopened along > the > way-- wounds in some cases I had never felt before, in some cases. > First: does a politician's speech always have to *advocate* some particular thing? Anyway: I think Obama's speech was, in fact, "advocating" at least two complex things. One is that just because we're a nation, a people - a "family" in his central metaphor - that doesn't mean we all agree, or that we'll always get along. Instead of pretending that "you're either with us or with the terrists," Obama is saying that in order for anything to happen, we have to bluntly and frankly confront our differences, analyze where they come from, and only then try to work with them...rather than blithely say "let's move on - that's the past" when "the past" is quite present for people on the losing side of the draw. That "family" metaphor is aptly chosen - not least because of Obama's own family and its complexity, but as an implicit rebuke to the right's "family values" crapola...which rests on the assumptions that not only does everyone in a family think alike, but that all families think alike. They don't, obviously - but again, it's hard to find public figures who'll acknowledge that people's differences are real, and even if their analysis of those differences' causes might be flawed, rooted in real injustice. The other thing being advocated here, then, is a move away from the politics of hatred and division, of ideological purity, of party politics as practiced ruthlessly by the Bush Administration. If Obama's grandmother sometimes said painful, ignorant, even hateful things, the answer was not to kick her out of the house, threaten her, fine her, or throw her in some black-ops offshore prison, it's to work with her, try to understand her, try to understand *why* she would make painful, ignorant, hateful remarks, try to see if the causes of those misunderstandings can't be alleviated or eliminated. The right wing in this country has been based on exclusionary principles, and nearly everything the Bush Administration has done has been predicated on separating the "good" folks from the bad, the apostates, the America-haters, the RINOs, etc. I think that message is pretty clear, in fact - and it's why Obama disavowed Wright's *words* but not Wright himself. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 11:42:29 -0700 From: "Stacked Crooked" Subject: "Extremely Successful" you know who deserves the fucking blame here? anybody who, five years after the fact, continues to drive a motor-car and/or pay federal income taxes, and/or in any other way vote with his or her dollars for the continuation of american empire. in short: you, me, us. you want this lifestyle? then war in iraq is necessary. oh, and obama, the piece of shit slimeball, can go fuck himself: >>By the way, I would reach out to the first George Bush. You know, one of the things that I think George H.W. Bush doesnt get enough credit for was his foreign policy team and the way that he helped negotiate the end of the Cold War and prosecuted the Gulf War. That cost us 20 billion dollars. Thats all it cost. It was extremely successful.<< it's not inconceivable that obama's completely ignorant of the humanitarian cost of the first gulf war (not to mention the post-cold-war economic "shock therapy" in the former communist countries). if so, it's all the more reason to not vote for him. fuck obama. fuck hillary. fuck the democrats twenty-five ways from sunday. fuck them. fuck them. fuck them to hell. and then fuck them some more. the fucking shithole pieces of fuck. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 19:11:46 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: Self-pimping On 3/24/08, Rex wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 11:05 AM, Michael Sweeney > > wrote: > > > > Hi Fegs! > > > > This came out a few days ago, and I forgot to pimp it past you guys... > > > > I did an attempted-humorous piece for Time Out Chicago magazine's "real > > estate" issue on the relative "joys" of being an advancing-age domicile > > renter. > > > > Nice piece; humorousness achieved! I'm right there with you on most of > it, > too, even as a family man... unless you make a shitload more than the wife > and I do, you can forget buying anything other than a real crappy house > around here (which would equal a lowering in the family's quality of life > across the boards, from creature comforts to neighborhood school > eligibilty, > and on down the line). Can't do that. And no amount of people telling me > that buying something is the only smart financial decision is going to > make > me want something I fundamentally don't want, such as owning a shitty > condo > in Glendale instead of living in a large, nice-ish house right on the > reservoir in Silver Lake within walking distance to a very good elementary > school. It makes a huge difference what real estate costs. Here, if you can afford it, buying a house usually makes sense: your mortgage payments are likely to be not that much more than rent, there are plenty of fine neighborhoods that are affordable, and instead of pissing away money to a landlord, you're essentially paying your future self instead. But things would be entirely different if the money I could spend on rent would put me in a decent neighborhood with good schools (if we had kids) vs. what I could afford in mortgage giving me a shack next to the VIN-erasing shack and crack-whore condom-dispensing store. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 16:21:26 -0800 (PST) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: "Extremely Successful" On Mon, 24 Mar 2008, Stacked Crooked wrote: > fuck obama. fuck hillary. fuck the democrats twenty-five ways from > sunday. fuck them. fuck them. fuck them to hell. and then fuck them > some more. the fucking shithole pieces of fuck. Voting Nader? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 18:14:11 -0700 From: "kevin studyvin" Subject: Re: Frank Rich on the forthcoming disaster > Why else could so much rancor be stirred up by what kind of coffee someone > else > drinks? How the hell can "latte-drinking" be an insult? Well, because it > stands for something like "people who have unearned privileges, people > who've turned their back on us, people who think they're better than us, > which is why they pretend to like stupid imported coffees and cheeses and > wines when if they weren't so dishonest with themselves - wimps! - they'd > drink Bud and individually wrapped American cheese and coffee at > McDonald's > like normal Americans. I may be speaking strictly for myself here, but I'd rather have McDonald's coffee than Starbucks any time. Tastes better because it's not roasted to freaking death. On the other hand I'll take a slab of havarti over Kraft cheese any time. > That, in turn, follows from a reflexive anti-intellectualism, sometimes > religious-based, sometimes based in a gross misunderstanding of > "democracy" Lots of commentators have mentioned lots of times for many, many years the seemingly innate anti-intellectualism of the American people. I'll certainly never forget the sneering dismissals my father, who came from a farm town in eastern Washington and went from high school directly into the Navy, routinely uttered concerning what he referred to as "college boys," and most of his friends would nod sagely and agree, often offering some observation in support of George Wallace's tirades against pointy-headed intellectuals... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 18:16:58 -0700 From: "kevin studyvin" Subject: Re: "Extremely Successful" To quote the late great Terry Southern: "Bitter, baby, bitter." > fuck obama. fuck hillary. fuck the democrats twenty-five ways from > sunday. fuck them. fuck them. fuck them to hell. and then fuck them > some more. the fucking shithole pieces of fuck. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 18:38:46 -0700 From: "kevin studyvin" Subject: Not to change the subject or anything, but I am officially in heaven. Just found the unforgettable SCTV clip of "My Girl" as performed by the Recess Monkeys, which was immediately succeeded by the insane Stairways To Heaven bit and "Gordon Lightfoot Sings Every Song Ever Written." If this foolishness doesn't get you off to at least a modest degree you may need therapy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddIq7p-nAVQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0O9_HEYcMr8&NR=1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSThKFtOC48&NR=1 And now back to the political ranting... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 18:38:46 -0700 From: "kevin studyvin" Subject: Not to change the subject or anything, but I am officially in heaven. Just found the unforgettable SCTV clip of "My Girl" as performed by the Recess Monkeys, which was immediately succeeded by the insane Stairways To Heaven bit and "Gordon Lightfoot Sings Every Song Ever Written." If this foolishness doesn't get you off to at least a modest degree you may need therapy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddIq7p-nAVQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0O9_HEYcMr8&NR=1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSThKFtOC48&NR=1 And now back to the political ranting... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 21:52:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: "Extremely Successful" > > fuck obama. fuck hillary. fuck the democrats twenty-five ways from > > sunday. fuck them. fuck them. fuck them to hell. and then fuck them > > some more. the fucking shithole pieces of fuck. Eddie, my friend: have you had your blood pressure checked lately? - --Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V16 #549 ********************************